I would say 95% of lawyers are all about the mighty dollar. They don't give 2 shi$s wether justice is done. They just wanna get paid. That is the problem with the legal system. It is a fact that Chi Vang killed 6 people. If he was executed right now, someone would think twice before tresspassing. Like I said before set an example

It's really funny watching liberals state an opinion and call it fact. What you offered was opinion and conjecture. Still waiting for your evidence that the crime scene was tampered with.

I'm sorry, aren't you from PA? How the heck would you know if there's racism in the area? Because of some BS article you read? Please, you're just trying to defend your past posts with some BS excuse now. Ask around the Twin Cities area if people are racist toward the Hmong population that's highly concentrated in St Paul.

People hate the guy because he shot 8 people and killed 6, because he has a past criminal record and has proven he's not an ethical sportsman. Not because he's Hmong. Because he's not a good person, and a murderer in many people's eyes.

Do you really believe that everyone on this forum assumes guilt because of his race? Do you think that we would be ok with any one man killing another six? Open your eyes, man.

I realize that, that is why I posted what I did.

Yes it was. I see through you childish lieberal spew. I won't give you the satisfaction of getting angry. However, I find the unsubstatinated claims and the unsupported inferences that you made in your original posts to be ignorant for one, since you have no direct knowledge and extremely disrespectful to both the victims and their families. While you may feel comfortable to spout your garbage behind the anonimity of the internet. I doubt seriously that you would be so brave as to do it in the area in which this took place especially not if you were in the presence of the family members. To be perfectly honest it wouldn't be a very good idea to it around me. I think these people have been violated enough. I hate to see anyone taken advantage of or wronged in anyway. Most of the time in these type of situations I feel compelled to fight for the person that is being wronged. Therefore, I would take you spouting your liberal garbage about the same way that I would if you physically slapped me and I would have the identical reaction........

I think everyone realized what he was from his first post.

In his fifty page article, Robert Owens discusses the myriad of pitfalls that a crime scene investigator faces while conducting a field investigation.

In her discussion of homicide investigation, Ms. Goldbach states that while time passes between the commission of said crime, evidence is being spoiled and is open to tampering. A crime scene is "tampered with" once one person steps in a drop of blood, turns over a bloody leaf, touches a body, leaves a footprint in a tiretrack. My point is that it is a fact that a crime scene is almost never so sterile as to warrant all evidence collected to be used in the prosecution.

Robert J. Owens, Esq., LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROSECUTIONS: COORDINATING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SYMPOSIUM, Fordham Environmental Law Journal 1996 see also Anne C. Goldbach, Trying Murder and Other Homicide Cases in Massachusetts: Volume I Chapter 5 CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION (2004)

In this case, people were milling around the woods, possibly touching the bodies, and waiting for help. While there may not have been evidence intentionally tampered with, it probably was. Further, the possibility for intentional tampering did, in fact, exist between the time of commission and when the first law enforcement official's arrival. I would presume that some of the evidence at that scene was compromised.

The liberal has again stated an opinion, but it is now rooted in fact.

As typical, a liberal loves to have it both ways...

"While I'm unfamiliar with the specifics..."
Quote from Quicksilver

"Quit jumping to wild conclusions. "
Another quote from Quicksilver.

Sorry, but if you are as you say, "unfamiliar with the specifics", anything you speculate about is, as you say, "jumping to wild conclusions."



Slice

what evidence do you need? The guy gunned down 6 people. He knows he did it, the victims know he did it, the families know he did it, the cops know he did it, the justice system knows he did it, and the whole damn country knows he did it. Now a lawyer such as yourself is trying to get him off![:@]

What's the old saying about assuming???

Sorry, quicksilver, but you can quote all the law books you want, but all you keep doing is assuming and speculating. You speculate that the victims must have gotten their stories straight and you assume the evidence must have been contaminated.

What ever happened to "quit jumping to wild conclusions."???

Now, if you want facts, Vang himself admits in his affadavit that he shot the people on the ATV's that were coming to the scene to help BEFORE they even got off the ATV's. He makes no mention of the ATV riders having weapon, only that he shot them as they rode by. Since the ATV riders were not at the scene when the original shooting began, how can killing them possibly be self defense?


Slice

Which case are you referring to? The Vang case?

A bullet in the back is a bullet in the back